Introduction:

Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority. ….Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. — The Supreme Court of the United States, Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)Twelve Angry Men, originally written for television by Reginald Rose in 1954 and subsequently adapted for stage (1955), film(1957) and television again (1997), effectively conveys the central importance of the right to a jury trial afforded by Article III of the Constitution as well as Amendments V, VI, and XIV. Focusing on the right to a trial by "an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed," the play also addresses related constitutional provisions, including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty and the right to counsel. After reading this, you will be able to answer the following open-ended questions.

I. How does the play Twelve Angry Men deepen our understanding of the constitutional guarantee of the right to trial by jury and the role of the jury system in American democracy?

II.What are the strengths and weaknesses of this system from a civic point of view?Guiding Questions- As we read the play, you will answer the following questions either on a separate paper or via email for credit.

What kind of people were chosen to serve on the jury?

Was the jury in this case representative of the US population at the time?

Was the jury in this case impartial?

What were the primary concerns of the jurors?

What factors influenced the jurors as they discussed and decided this case?

Did the jurors believe that they were doing their job responsibly?

What factors convinced them to change their votes?

Which of these concerns had a constitutional basis (think Bill of Rights, etc)?

What, ultimately, was the crucial factor in determining the outcome of the trial?

What do you think the jurors learned while deliberating the case? About the trial? About themselves? About the Constitution?

Does this film leave you feeling concerned or confident that a "trial by jury" results in a fair trial? What are the reasons for your position? Was justice truly served in this trial? Did a guilty man go free? 2 PARAGRAPHS MINUMUM.-Adopted from Edsitement by Mr. Eizyk